for one, mr. kirby's name never appeared on any issue of the amazing spider-man beyond the cover of AF#15. that's it.
just as i believe ditko has rights to creating spider-man, as the primary artist for 41 issues, kirby may have a case with FF or the others he was the chief artist.
ditko, lee and john romita sr. are the creative fathers of spider-man. they laid down the look, the feel, the attitude that have endured over the years.
btw. thank the lord kirby's vision of spider-man wasn't adopted, or he'd be sued for cloning someone else's idea.
@jfpierce: As well as stolen, as there was little to no security on the room where the published art was originally stored, and anyone could walk in and take a souvenir.
@thexpert:
Because DC did right by him and gave him a chunk of change for creating Darkseid. In fact, because he created the New Gods before such agreements came into place, Jeannette Kahn hired him to redesign the character slightly so he could claim the money.
marvels fine print is basically "work for hire" you submit it and it makes it into the final comic you get credit for creating it but you dont own it. so everything except for captain america and bucky and a few others is untouchable. do you deserve a piece of the money hat? of course... if your still alive. do greedy relatives? no i mean come on where were they when marvel filed chapter 11 bankruptcy in the 90s
@zitichamp: Of course. Marvel and DC are both like this, since they're contracting writers to write for them, as opposed to publishing stuff for writers.
One of the reasons that Neil Gaiman said he wasn't going to write another big comic book was because unlike his novels, the comic book companies don't allow the characters he creates to be his own.
That said, publishers like Image (and, to a degree, Dark Horse) publish creator-owned content all the time.
@braak: It's doubtful whether such a contract existed when Kirby first created the characters. The agreement that he had to sign to get the release of his original art (which was longer and more legalistic than the ones for any other artist) tried to get him give up any claim to the characters. This was in the mid-80s.
It didn't, that's why Stan Lee sued the company he's been the continued mouthpiece for, just to get a little compensation for his works. The only way he would see any money for it was to take legal action. It makes more sense for him to sue and recieve something, being alive, even if it looked like money grubbing when it all went down. It does however look much worse on Kirby's family doing this and him not being alive to comment on it himself.
If Kirby at all felt like it was an issue he would have sued himself, he seemed like a guy who didn't take much crap seeing as to how he had no issue with continuing his work with DC.
Stan Lee's said it in interviews time and time again (like he does with every thing else he says, god bless him) back in those days, when Spider-man was created, they were lucky the books went to print at all let alone an idea be excepted. Times were much tougher then for the industry as it was still seen as new, as well as "the enemy" by government and parents (just like video gaming is now), and Comics were much harder to sell period. Even DC, who had been in the game longer, had trouble bringing a lot of ideas to print out of fear that they wouldn't be accepted. All that uncertainty is part of the reason why Creator rights were so overlooked then, no one thought about it because they were too concerned with just trying to get something out at all.
"If Kirby at all felt like it was an issue he would have sued himself, he seemed like a guy who didn't take much crap seeing as to how he had no issue with continuing his work with DC."
He was a very complicated man. No one understood him but his woman (sorry)...
Seriously, they treated him roughly in the mid 80s, when all he really wanted was his original art. He died in 1994, and he was not in the best of health for the decade up to his death. He didn't want to put his wife through a big trial, and I don't blame him.
Greedy family of a dead man fights it out with a greedy corporation.
I don't see a side to support here. I mean, they shouldn't own the rights because they're dad sold them. They have no interest in the characters they just want money money money since Disney just bought Marvel.
@Unmarketable_Product: a) Beyond using your imagination to project thoughts into the Kirby family's heads, how do you know they have no interest in the characters? "The Thing" in the Fantastic Four is based on their father. He grew up in the same neighborhood and has the same ethnic background as Jack Kirby.
b) Why did Disney buy Marvel? "They just want money money money."
@Pinkhamster: Yes, heaven forbid the mega-conglomerate be forced to give up a bit of the money they're making on someone else's work to the family who could have used it all along. We can't have that happen. Protect the poor corporations!
@Lincolnsbeard33: What does that have to do anything. Disney could do more with every idea any of us here have ever had than any of us could. So should we graciously allow then to do so for the greater good?
I have no horse in this Kirby race incidentally. Glad he played a part in creating characters I have enjoyed at points in my life, but I think his art looks like shit.
@Lincolnsbeard33:
the Kirby family would probably get a cut of that, and maybe some amount of veto over certain items. I doubt it would be in their best interest to totally hoard the characters.
@Lincolnsbeard33: Really?! Disney is able to make good movies, rides, and video games? Why don't they do that? I'd love to see a good Disney (no, Pixar doesn't count -- Disney just bought them) movie! Haven't seen one of those in, what, about 30 years now!
Do you mean "good" as in "Little Mermaid III - Ariel's Beginning" or "good" as in "Dadnapped?"
I think it's just possible that the uninvolved family of a deceased artist may actually be able to do more with Marvel characters than Disney can, at this point. And that's just sad.
Spider-Man is listed as an attempt to panic the other side into agreeing on the other characters if Spider-Man is dropped from the claims, would be my guess.
A nerdy teen-ager living with his aunt and uncle, acquires spider powers and becomes a superhero named "Spider man"? Sounds like a pretty substantive contribution. More than nothing, anyhow.
Flip it around. Start making a comic book character who is a teen-ager living with his aunt and uncle, acquires spider powers and becomes a superhero named "Spider man," and who has a costume entirely unlike the current Marvel character. Would Marvel sue you, or would Marvel let you make all the money you wanted off of your "Spider Man"?
@cletar: Marvel has threatened legal action against people for doing less. They threatened Eclipse for Alan Moore's "Marvelman," so it had to be renamed "Miracleman." And they took Dave Stevens to court (he said in an interview he had been paying a lawyer for three years and had to use all of his profit from the graphic novel for this purpose) because they had a group of old characters called "Rocketeers" that were not the same as his.
@cletar: I have no idea how the law works, which is why one day I will end up in jail for any number of infractions, but this logical bit of thinking is wonderful and you are to be commended for it. Having said that, my understanding of the modern world is that this "logic" concept is considered an optional trait in humans.
@cletar: Interesting, but comic books are a visual medium. I don't see how you can fail to consider the character's appearance as well as the basic character sketch.
@Counterglow: Right, but I don't see how you can fail to consider the core concept of nerdy teen that lives with his aunt and uncle while secretly being a superhero called "Spider Man."
I think it's basically a negotiating tactic, anyway.
@cletar: I don't know how you can't consider that Stan Lee may have been the bulk of the idea. Spider-Man was drawn as concept art by Kirby, but he didn't present the idea himself. Ditko and Stan Lee may have been 90% of the outline. So your argument is voided before its begun.
@brett108: Oh, I'm not arguing for Kirby being the sole creator of Spiderman--I'm not actually advocating for anything, I'm not Kirby's lawyer-- I'm just saying his contribution is probably greater than zero, whereas his compensation from the 2 billion dollar film take has been exactly zero...unlike Stan Lee.
@braak: "Yes, but he's also dead--something which obviates the need for compensation."
Under your principle, anyone who owes anyone else money should murder the person they owe money to. "He's dead, which obviates the need for compensation."
"Sure, I inadvertently poisoned your kids by dumping pesticide in the lake, but they're dead, which obviates the need for compensation!"
@The-Simpsons-Rule!!: Yeah, he's better off just showing up and saying nothing, but just the same, the entire movie was unraveling around the midway point anyway, so it didn't matter.
09/22/09
09/23/09
09/23/09
[kotaku.com]
Then the pain set in.
09/22/09
just as i believe ditko has rights to creating spider-man, as the primary artist for 41 issues, kirby may have a case with FF or the others he was the chief artist.
ditko, lee and john romita sr. are the creative fathers of spider-man. they laid down the look, the feel, the attitude that have endured over the years.
btw. thank the lord kirby's vision of spider-man wasn't adopted, or he'd be sued for cloning someone else's idea.
09/22/09
So, given this, I'd LOVE to see Ditko incorporate Kirby into this...
09/22/09
09/22/09
Lol at Kamandi...
09/22/09
09/22/09
09/22/09
09/23/09
Because DC did right by him and gave him a chunk of change for creating Darkseid. In fact, because he created the New Gods before such agreements came into place, Jeannette Kahn hired him to redesign the character slightly so he could claim the money.
09/22/09
09/22/09
09/22/09
One of the reasons that Neil Gaiman said he wasn't going to write another big comic book was because unlike his novels, the comic book companies don't allow the characters he creates to be his own.
That said, publishers like Image (and, to a degree, Dark Horse) publish creator-owned content all the time.
09/22/09
/anyone not reading Criminal, you need to. It's awesome.
09/23/09
09/25/09
It didn't, that's why Stan Lee sued the company he's been the continued mouthpiece for, just to get a little compensation for his works. The only way he would see any money for it was to take legal action. It makes more sense for him to sue and recieve something, being alive, even if it looked like money grubbing when it all went down. It does however look much worse on Kirby's family doing this and him not being alive to comment on it himself.
If Kirby at all felt like it was an issue he would have sued himself, he seemed like a guy who didn't take much crap seeing as to how he had no issue with continuing his work with DC.
Stan Lee's said it in interviews time and time again (like he does with every thing else he says, god bless him) back in those days, when Spider-man was created, they were lucky the books went to print at all let alone an idea be excepted. Times were much tougher then for the industry as it was still seen as new, as well as "the enemy" by government and parents (just like video gaming is now), and Comics were much harder to sell period. Even DC, who had been in the game longer, had trouble bringing a lot of ideas to print out of fear that they wouldn't be accepted. All that uncertainty is part of the reason why Creator rights were so overlooked then, no one thought about it because they were too concerned with just trying to get something out at all.
09/27/09
"If Kirby at all felt like it was an issue he would have sued himself, he seemed like a guy who didn't take much crap seeing as to how he had no issue with continuing his work with DC."
He was a very complicated man. No one understood him but his woman (sorry)...
Seriously, they treated him roughly in the mid 80s, when all he really wanted was his original art. He died in 1994, and he was not in the best of health for the decade up to his death. He didn't want to put his wife through a big trial, and I don't blame him.
09/22/09
I don't see a side to support here. I mean, they shouldn't own the rights because they're dad sold them. They have no interest in the characters they just want money money money since Disney just bought Marvel.
Its pathetic. Sorry Mr. Kirby.
09/22/09
b) Why did Disney buy Marvel? "They just want money money money."
09/22/09
Disney is able to make good movies, rides, video games and more.
09/22/09
09/22/09
I have no horse in this Kirby race incidentally. Glad he played a part in creating characters I have enjoyed at points in my life, but I think his art looks like shit.
09/23/09
the Kirby family would probably get a cut of that, and maybe some amount of veto over certain items. I doubt it would be in their best interest to totally hoard the characters.
09/23/09
Do you mean "good" as in "Little Mermaid III - Ariel's Beginning" or "good" as in "Dadnapped?"
I think it's just possible that the uninvolved family of a deceased artist may actually be able to do more with Marvel characters than Disney can, at this point. And that's just sad.
09/22/09
09/22/09
09/22/09
09/22/09
Flip it around. Start making a comic book character who is a teen-ager living with his aunt and uncle, acquires spider powers and becomes a superhero named "Spider man," and who has a costume entirely unlike the current Marvel character. Would Marvel sue you, or would Marvel let you make all the money you wanted off of your "Spider Man"?
09/22/09
09/22/09
09/22/09
09/22/09
I think it's basically a negotiating tactic, anyway.
09/23/09
09/23/09
09/23/09
Moreover, he kept signing away his rights to material that he did create, every time he signed one of those contracts that he negotiated himself.
And, I guess, extra-moreover: I'm not sure that you can copyright an idea or a "core concept" like that.
09/23/09
Under your principle, anyone who owes anyone else money should murder the person they owe money to. "He's dead, which obviates the need for compensation."
"Sure, I inadvertently poisoned your kids by dumping pesticide in the lake, but they're dead, which obviates the need for compensation!"
09/22/09
09/22/09
07/07/09
Venom wasn't cool at all in Spiderman 3.
AGHHHHHH.
07/07/09
07/07/09
If you look closely, in the background next to one of the buildings you'll see him as Venom.
07/07/09
07/07/09
07/07/09
06/29/09
06/29/09